Opposition groups say Florida’s Amendment 2 isn’t about the ‘right to hunt and fish’

Florida’s Amendment 2 appears to be a non-contentious, apolitical securing of two rights many Floridians enjoy; it is aptly named the “Right to Hunt and Fish.”

For many voters, this Amendment—which will appear on the ballot in November—will seem like an easy, non-consequential decision. Why would we want to make fishing illegal? Beneath the surface, however, two contesting factions offer very different definitions of the Amendment and its underlying implications.

According to local animal welfare organizations, there is already a state statute that codifies the right to hunt and fish—and voters may want to reconsider.

Those supporting the amendment claim it is a commonsensical extension of what is already an important part of Florida culture. No matter who you listen to, the situation is politically and ethically complicated, involving the NRA, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida black bears, animal advocacy organizations, and the meaning of two sentences.

The entire prospective Amendment reads: “Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. This section does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.”

Concerns by environmentalists and animal advocacy activists revolve around two specific phrases: “traditional methods” and “preferred means.”

Melissa Zepeda, a St. Petersburg animal activist, and corporate lawyer told Creative Loafing Tampa Bay that “You may think a typical hunting rifle is a ‘traditional method,’ but a traditional method includes steel traps, poison, and clubbing an animal. A traditional hunting method could include clubbing an animal to death.”

To local animal activists, “traditional methods” is a deliberately ambiguous phrase that could allow a regressive return to modes of hunting that the public generally disagrees with. And this isn’t merely conspiratorial thinking.

According to a 2014 document distributed by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), the language around traditional methods is specifically intended to ease restrictions around controversial hunting methods.

The foundation—which provides guidance and sponsors state amendments to hunt and fish—writes that “by using a phrase like “traditional methods,” proponents can give a stronger protection to trapping without actually mentioning trapping.”

“Trapping admittedly faces a lot of controversy in this country,” CSF acknowledges, “much more so than the more mainstream ways of hunting, such as by firearm or bow.”

They explicitly state that the “vague” language could also reinforce “other methods of hunting that have come under scrutiny.”

Despite the Amendment’s qualification that it does not “limit the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,” because Amendment 2 is a state constitutional amendment, if it passes, implementing and enforcing new regulations could become more difficult. “It would be a Herculean task to get a new regulation passed,” said Zepeda, “because now you’re saying that the right to hunt is like our freedom of speech.”

The other troubling language, “preferred means of wildlife management,” presents an entirely new set of potential problems. Myriam Parham, president of Florida Voices for Animals—a local Tampa Bay animal rights organization—explained that “if you really care about the environment and animals in the wild, there are many non-lethal methods of wildlife management.” The issue with hunting being the “preferred means” of management, according to Parham, is it makes hunting the first choice rather than a last resort or merely a recreational activity.

Parham cited Florida black bears as a particular source of anxiety. The Amendment would seemingly favor shooting bears over simple preventative measures, such as requiring automatic locking trashcan lids in counties with bear populations. According to Parham, this small modification to residential trash cans is over “92% effective” in deterring bears from roaming on homeowner’s property.

Florida Black bears are a point of contention since they are a distinct species of bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) and were previously on the threatened species list from 1974-2012. In 1974, there were only a few hundred left. Today, things are looking much better, with slightly over 4,000 reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in 2023. For environmentalists, Florida Amendment 2, along with Florida bill HB 87—which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law, allowing for the killing of Black bears under “specified conditions”—poses an immediate threat to the Florida Black Bear population.

Chuck O’Neal, political chair of noto2.org and President of Central Florida environmental organization Speak Up Wekiva, reiterated this concern and is critical of hunting being named the primary form of wildlife management.

“If there were a shortage of a species, like Key deer, the preferred means should be to stop hunting,” said O’Neal, “there is no way that you can bring back a species by killing it.”

Activists maintain that there are other means of managing wildlife, such as animal protection, preventative measures, or reproductive management, that should be employed first.

To O’Neal, it is significant to consider who is backing the Amendment, such as the NRA and trophy hunting organizations, with the latter being a largely unpopular form of hunting in the United States. O’Neal clarified that those against the Amendment are not necessarily opposed to hunting and fishing but think that this Amendment is excessive. “I cannot speak for everyone in the movement, but Noto2.org is not opposed to hunting and fishing. We just want to see it regulated.”

Further, Amendment 2 is perceived as deceptive by many since it seems to imply that hunting and fishing are not already protected by Florida law. Florida statute 379.104, however, clearly secures the legal right for Floridians to hunt and fish subject to state wildlife regulations. The statute reads: “the citizens of Florida have a right to hunt, fish, and take game.”

Proponents of Amendment 2, namely the organization Vote Yes on 2 (who did not respond to a request for comment), state on their website that a constitutional state right to fish and hunt is necessary. Their site states, “Amendment 2 definitively protects our right to fish and hunt in the state of Florida … [it] will prevent extremists from taking away our rights.”

Zepeda observed, conversely, that “if Amendment 2 doesn’t pass, then Floridians still keep their right to hunt, which is already in our state section—that would not change.”

Additionally, the fears surrounding state laws taking away hunting and fishing rights, which pro-Amendment 2 organizations say are propagated by “extremists,” seem to be largely unfounded. O’Neal argued that these organizations misrepresent these statutes.

“I’ve seen the Yes to 2 propaganda, so to speak,” said O’Neal, “they say that they’re doing this because Oregon almost passed a law to make hunting illegal, but it never even made it on the ballot.”

The Oregon statute, IP-3, which attempted to outlaw the killing of animals outside of self-defense, was more than 80,000 signatures short of making it onto the state ballot—meaning that no votes were cast in favor of it, and the law had a less-than marginal chance of ever being passed. In short, there have been no documented, substantive, and politically viable state-wide pushes to make hunting and fishing illegal.

“The other side is entitled to their own opinion,” O’Neal told CL, “but they aren’t entitled to their own facts.”

Facts are precisely what is at stake here. Zepeda stated it is crucial that the public is informed of the facts of these issues before they vote. “Most people respect the right to hunt, but if you told them that hunting and killing is going to be the primary way of managing animals, I think that people would have a problem with that.”

Voting for president is not the only consequential decision to make in November; Floridians must also weigh both opinions and facts to determine what Amendment 2 means for Florida—and its animals.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter

This article appears in Aug 1-7, 2024.